Jump to content

United States (hosted) World Cup Locations.


Augie4040

Recommended Posts

Since some users were asking about the stadiums, here's a quick list of the possible venues (I didn't include the Cotton Bowl or Husky Stadium, as they have zero chance to be chosen for their hometowns):

Atlanta - Georgia Dome - 70,868 - Closed Dome - 1992

Baltimore - M&T Bank Stadium - 71,008 - Open Air - 1998

Boston - Gillette Stadium - 68,756 - Open Air - 2002

Dallas - Cowboys Stadium - 105,000 - Retractable Roof - 2009

Denver - Invesco Field - 76,125 - Open Air - 2001

Houston - Reliant Stadium - 71,500 - Retractable Roof - 2002

Indianapolis - Lucas Oil Stadium - 66,500 - Retractable Roof - 2008

Kansas City - Arrowhead Stadium - 77,000 - Open Air - 1972 (currently under renovation)

Los Angeles - Rose Bowl - 92,542 - Open Air - 1922

Los Angeles - LA Coliseum - 93,607 - Open Air - 1923

Miami - Dolphin Stadium - 76,500 - Open Air - 1987 (renovations being proposed)

Nashville - LP Field - 68,798 - Open Air - 1999

New York - Meadowlands Stadium - 82,500 - Open Air - 2010

Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field - 68,532 - Open Air - 2003

Phoenix - U of Phoenix Stadium - 71,362 - Retractable Roof - 2006

San Diego - Qualcomm Stadium - 71,000 - Open Air - 1967

Seattle - Qwest Field - 72,000 - Open Air - 2002

Tampa - Raymond James Stadium - 75,000 - Open Air - 1998

Washington - FedEx Field - 91,794 - Open Air - 1997

Note that Los Angeles and San Diego both have designs for new NFL stadiums. Los Angeles's new stadium has been approved, and I would wager will be open by 2013. San Diego only has a proposal at this point, but if things move quickly, it could be ready by 2014. Washington has talked about a new stadium, but not much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Of course, the 49er stadium in Santa Clara is still ont he drawing boards...but if that becomes a reality, it would be strategically located...just outside San Jose (the #3 city in California); and at the X-roads of Silicon Valley and Santa Clara. And that would seat 70,000. But I guess the bid is only looking at existing stadia...not blueprints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good list. Maybe scrap Nashville and Dallas though. As others have said, you don't want to just copy-and-paste the exact same roster from '94; re-use some of course, but not all of them, and in this case Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit, and Orlando seemed like reasonable choices to sacrifice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good list. Maybe scrap Nashville and Dallas though. As others have said, you don't want to just copy-and-paste the exact same roster from '94; re-use some of course, but not all of them, and in this case Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit, and Orlando seemed like reasonable choices to sacrifice.

Scrap Dallas? I don't see the US bid leaving out the most state-of-the-art stadium in the world. Cowboys Stadium may not have the same "wow" factor in 202, but I can see it impressing FIFA as one of the centerpiece stadiums in the bidding process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that Chicago was left out. When FIFA makes its decision, along with sponsors, they aren't going to leave out Chicago.

They want the best cities and best venues. No domestic issues, generally affect this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read an article from the Miami Hearld stating Miami is hoping to get the finals match. i think that too much with LA, NY in the mix. its not even guaranteed they'll make the final shortlist.

Agreed. I think Miami would end up as a host considering their Hispanic population and having one of the larger stadiums in the cities left, but even if they go through with proposed improvements to Dolphin Stadium, the final would go to Los Angeles (if they build a new 80,000+ seat stadium), DC (ditto), New York, or a long shot, Dallas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I think Miami would end up as a host considering their Hispanic population and having one of the larger stadiums in the cities left, but even if they go through with proposed improvements to Dolphin Stadium, the final would go to Los Angeles (if they build a new 80,000+ seat stadium), DC (ditto), New York, or a long shot, Dallas.
which stadium is LA putting forth? Rose Bowl? the planned stadium in City of Industry will only built once an NFL team has officially declared it's moving to LA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree. The box office records for 1994 speak for themselves. The big question for the 2018/22 bid is...will this mix of cities give the same results that 1994 produced? Probably so. I think it can be marketed as another 'once-in-a lifetime' event and w/ 32 teams, you will still get great results.

BTW...are the new cities with roofs/partial roofs? That's the only markedly major, different criterion the new lists boasts vs. the '94 venues that I can think of in dropping such major markets as the SF Bay Area and Chicago.

Stirthesoul is right though. Any country can sell-out a few high prestige one-off events, particularly one as large as the USA. The annual overseas NFL Games sells out the 90,000 seat Wembley every year, but NFL isn't even on the radar for 95% of the population here. I don't know the first thing about it and I watch a lot of sport.

The US is in a very lucky situation (unlike Australia) where one of its main sports just happens to share fields of a similar size to soccer. If it wasn't in this situation there wouldn't be the infrastrucutre, given the interest levels in soccer, to host a world cup. It's a lucky quirk of fate for FIFA that the world's most important nation's most important sport has fields of the right size. You can't really use the 94 stats to make a generalisation about levels of interest in soccer in the US because of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I think Miami would end up as a host considering their Hispanic population and having one of the larger stadiums in the cities left, but even if they go through with proposed improvements to Dolphin Stadium, the final would go to Los Angeles (if they build a new 80,000+ seat stadium), DC (ditto), New York, or a long shot, Dallas.

Exactly. Why would FIFA take the final to Miami with an older, used up stadium, when they can have it (as it's traditionally been) in one of the premier U.S. cities, & with much newer stadiums, like New York or Los Angeles. That's why I also think Dallas ain't gettin' it either, no matter how grandiose their new stadium is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Why would FIFA take the final to Miami with an older, used up stadium, when they can have it (as it's traditionally been) in one of the premier U.S. cities, & with much newer stadiums, like New York or Los Angeles. That's why I also think Dallas ain't gettin' it either, no matter how grandiose their new stadium is.

Dallas is doing everything it can to drum up the new stadium. The new Manny Pacquiao fight (not w/ Merriwreather) will be held at this new Cowboys site..even though it loolks like it will only use a 45,000-seat configuration for a boxing match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scrap Dallas? I don't see the US bid leaving out the most state-of-the-art stadium in the world. Cowboys Stadium may not have the same "wow" factor in 202, but I can see it impressing FIFA as one of the centerpiece stadiums in the bidding process.

Point taken. Scrap Houston then. My point is, I don't see the need for 2 host cities in Texas. Come to think of it, the same could be said for Florida so scrap Tampa as well. California is ok with 2 host cities because....um...they're California I guess. Sorry, I don't know how to explain it. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of the list of 18, I would take out Baltimore, Philadelphia, Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa, Indianapolis and Houston. I agree that if FIFA wants Chicago they will get Chicago, just like they choose a city not put forward or recommended by Brazil.

Some of the stadiums will need to resurface. Since WC matches must be played on grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, Chicago didn't want to be part of the bid, so that's why they weren't included.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/sports/s...15cncpulse.html

I pointed this out already . . . :P

And I don't understand what you're saying, Faster. FIFA would choose Chicago even if they want no part of the tournament? Chicago isn't hosting any games unless there is a change of heart from city officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...